I stopped by the boycott of El Coyote Cafe last night just to see if it was on target and effective. I found myself drawn in. While I had not expected more than perhaps 30 activist types, I would estimate that more than 200 people took part (at one point – when you could still get from one side to the other – I counted about 150).

Those who were there knew why they were there and a great many were El Coyote customers. There were a great many hand painted signs and most showed an awareness of the facts involved. And while this was clearly seen as a part of a much larger protest effort by those I spoke to, this was not an irrational response to a rumor.

Unlike the mainstream media reports that Margie Christoffersen is “a manager” or “a daughter of the owner” (some even call her “an employee”), those there knew full well that Margie is the face of El Coyote. She is as much a part of the place as the fattening food, cheap margaritas, and bird cages full of plastic flowers.

And there is little doubt that the boycott was effective. During the period of the protest, only a handful of patrons drove into the parking lot and braved the jeers of boycotters. Perhaps not surprisingly, many were blonde. None were there unintentionally.

And while the parking lot was about half full, most of those cars didn’t move all night and I’m guessing that they did not belong to customers.

At one point a bus arrived and a large group of slightly-overdressed people entered the restaurant through a side door. Lisa Derrick identified them as French tourists, but I’ve not noticed another tour bus stop at El Coyote in the 19 years I’ve eaten there and find the coincidence a bit suspicious. Also, my admitedly limited experience with French people suggests that its likely that in a bus load of random tourists there would be several in the group who would refuse to eat at a restaurant being picketed by gays.

Although I had intended only to observe, I found that for this night, this was a boycott protest I could support. I soon found myself helping hold up a giant “boycott bigotry” sign. It’s not the wording I would have chosen, but it was close enough.

I was approached by a young man leaving the restaurant. He told me that he and his friends had a drink in the bar and while they sat there they realized that they just couldn’t stay and eat. “We decided we had to show our support for you.”

Well over half of the cars driving by honked or waved. A few circled around the block to honk again. Only one hasidic gentleman yelled “faggot” and one elderly man flipped us off – otherwise there was no visible negative response.

This was unquestionably a successful night of boycotting. But it was not a happy victory.

Those who work at El Coyote are the victims of the ownerships decisions – both that of Marjorie to contribute to the harm of her customers and the decision of her family to let her stay the face and voice of the establishment. I fear that unless a change is made quickly, this LA landmark will irreparably lose its base of gay and gay-friendly costomers and there aren’t enough busloads of “French tourists” to make up for that loss. And I feel sorrow that the employees – including Roberto and Isabelle, my favorite waiters – could all be hurt in the process.

And I still consider Margie to be a victim of the situation. Her church put her in an impossible position, fund an attack on those you love or lose your salvation. And while I cannot continue to contribute to her further enrichment (she told us her choice), I know she’s terribly hurt.

So, as expected, you’re demanding that they fire her, or you’ll run them out of business.

Meanwhile, as far as your “sympathy” for the workers, obviously you care so little for them that you’re trying to get their company shut down. Those workers should know, and by now do know, that you value suppressing and punishing those who exercise their right to donate, vote, and speak as they see fit over those workers’ livelihoods and their businesses.

A Chasidic Jew called you guys a “faggot?” Even the Ultra-Orthodox usually avoid such blatant Phelps-esque behavior, the way Dobson and the Baptists do. Shocking. And sad for the Jews, who are a great minority and are just as vulnerable to the Christian Bigots as gays are.

I don’t really want to get into another conversation with you of any length, but I’m really curious North Dallas Forty. Do you spend as much time posting to places like Focus on the Family and similar organizations about their boycots, etc. as you do with gay web sites?

ND 30, nobody is trying to “suppress” anything. Nobody was prevented from entering this restaurant, people are still free to go there, and people may still support any causes they want or vote anyway they want. Nobody is suggesting the use of physical force here. If the lesbian couple disagreed with the protestors, they were free to ignore them.

However, if you exercise your right to promote discrimination against gays, I’m going to exercise my right not to patronize your business. Nobody has a “right” to my money.

I suppose you would argue that blacks should not have boycotted segregated facilities out of concern for the employees of the facilities.

I feel bad for the employees of this place, but if Marjoe is going to treat gays like blacks generally were in 1948, all I can say is that she is responsible for any loss of business. If she does not like the cruel realities of the free market, perhaps its time for her to retire.

Blacks never settled for anything less than full legal equality and neither should we.

You folks are very, very cruel. You would destroy lifelihoods over a $100 donation? This vindictiveness is really indefensible. Americans have the legal and moral right to vote how they like. We have the legal and moral right to support whatever movement we like.

And while you have the legal right to destroy people’s lives, you do not have the moral right to do so.

This is political extortion. You might as well threaten her with a bomb. How much money are you trying to get out of her I wonder? You could probably extract $1000 a month from her and still destroy her business.

What you are doing is evil and wrong. It only makes more people certain that we should never cave in to the gay community.

Hum…I wonder if the Mormon Church church that is being so defensive realize that there are many in America that believe they are a cult and by attacking the rights of others this is strenghtening that belief. Then do not understand the changing of a consitiution, or maybe they do, and as American’s are finding out they are trying to make their “religious” beliefs law.

I donâ€™t really want to get into another conversation with you of any length, but Iâ€™m really curious North Dallas Forty.

Since you don’t want to get into a conversation, then I won’t bother responding to your question.

However, if you exercise your right to promote discrimination against gays, Iâ€™m going to exercise my right not to patronize your business. Nobody has a â€œrightâ€ to my money.

Ah, but you see,the problem is that you’re not merely exercising your right to not patronize the business; instead, you’re actively trying to destroy the business and a person’s livelihood.

If you choose not to eat there, that is your business. However, you are outside namecalling, physically blocking, and verbally assaulting patrons, and demanding that workers be fired for exercising their right to political beliefs, religious beliefs, and to donate to whom they choose.

I suppose you would argue that blacks should not have boycotted segregated facilities out of concern for the employees of the facilities.

Ah, but you see, black people were not allowed to set foot inside segregated facilities, be served there, be employed there, or in any way associate with them.

You as a gay person are perfectly welcome to set foot inside El Coyote, be served there, be employed there, and associate with them, as gay people obviously have been doing for years. No one’s stopping you; in fact, what has been made obvious is that gay people have been encouraged to eat there.

The problem here is that you are equating being physically barred from a facility under penalty of arrest and imprisonment with someone making a donation based on their religious beliefs with which you don’t agree.

“Humâ€¦I wonder if the Mormon Church church that is being so defensive realize that there are many in America that believe they are a cult and by attacking the rights of others this is strenghtening that belief. Then do not understand the changing of a consitiution, or maybe they do, and as Americanâ€™s are finding out they are trying to make their â€œreligiousâ€ beliefs law.”

Actually, John, if you were more familiar with the religious makeup of our nation, you would realize that those who most consider Mormonism a cult are Evangelicals. And Evangelicals and Mormons have joined in common cause against gay marriage. The gay community is actually achieving now what 50 years of ecumenism have never been able to do–get Christians, Jews, Muslims of every sort to organize and fight together.

Religious people dont need to take to the streets. We are the majority.

Well while speaking to my mother a few month back about Mitt Romney she said that she would not vote for him because he was a member of the ‘mormon church, which is really a cult’ and not a religion. I stuck up for him and the Mormons but will not make that mistake again. Boy I am surprised at how smart my mother is about these things! Oh yeah. she is not an Evangelical.

On the news when there are event about Mormons it is always about the retreats that have been evaded that are full of polygamy and pedophilia. Next step is to add these as acceptable relationships in the constitution?!? After all that is what going on with the other cult leaders. And they get away with it because their followers are not allowed to think for themselves.

CULT – Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members.

Traditional Family Structure…yeah right.. Wasn’t the founder of the Mormons a pedophile and polygamist?

Good thing, then, that you support religious people barricading off gay-owned businesses, demanding that gay employees be fired, and verbally assaulting customers of the business.

I’m not sure about “barricading off gay-owned businesses” or “verbally assaulting customers,” both of which sound like they might not be legal*, but if you’re asking if I support the right of religious people to organize protests and boycotts, to make any kind of demand they like and to yell at people, sure. I may disagree with their motivations and goals but if they’re not doing anything illegal then that’s their right. As I’m sure you’ll agree, such behavior isn’t always the most effective way to win public sympathy, but that doesn’t mean it should be prohibited by law.

It’s not like you’re describing a hypothetical situation, it’s very much the kind of thing that organizations like Planned Parenthood has had to deal with for decades. Fred Phelps has also been testing the limits of allowable speech. After much legislation and many years of litigation there are fairly clear rules about what legal limits on protesters are allowed. Where there is doubt, the courts, properly, provide guidance.

There are limits to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but they apply across the spectrum regardless of the content of the speech.

*Remember that assault is defined in many places as intentionally causing the reasonable apprehension of bodily harm. Yelling threats or swinging a stick at someones head in a threatening manner may be cause for arrest. I don’t support that kind of behavior. Likewise “demanding that gay employees be fired” might be allowable as a goal of a protest, but could well land an employer who gave in to such a demand in legal trouble if there were relevant anti-discrimination laws in place in that locale.

Fr. J wrote “You folks are very, very cruel. You would destroy lifelihoods (sic)over a $100 donation? This vindictiveness is really indefensible.”

You would destroy my civil marriage for what– you belief that homosexuality is a sin? This vindictiveness is really indefensible.

But it’s nothing new. I’ve been hearing your hate my whole life.

You seem so surprised that we’re angry that we have been attacked yet again with the usual set of lies and love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin bull-hockey. You seem surprised that we might be getting very tired of this, and maybe really don’t want to be good niggers anymore. You attack my freedom of religion by insisting that your particular take on your religious book should govern civil law, my civil marriage, and my equality before the law. You attack and invalidate my marriage, something you would never accept for yourself. Your campaign called me a threat to religion, speech, children, family, faith, education, and country. In order to support that very vindictive set of lies you told another set of lies– verifiable lies. Distortions and half-truths, all demonstrated as such, were part and parcel of your morality. You keep insisting it is all about your religious beliefs and not about prejudice and hate– honey, it has NEVER been about anything else, and never will be.

And you have the balls to insist that we are immoral?

You glory in your newfound alliance with the evangelicals. “I think they like us.They really, really like us.” It is a very sad thing that after 150 years of anti-Mormon persecution, you still don’t get it. No they don’t, and they never will. They have The Truth. You’re still a cult to them, but you had plenty of money and organizational power. So that worked. But it is an interesting admission, because I thought for a long time that the Mor ons (Damn that skipping m) were just trying to buy a bit of respectability with their overtures to other conservatives. I think you over-estimate them. Like any whores, they can be purchased for a while. Ultimately, they’re self-employed. Now you can go right back to trying to convert each other to the True Faith.

I’m sure you fail to see the great irony at the heart of your glory. You various sects and denominations and factions constantly disagree on the nature of god, the very history of G (book of mor on, anyone?) and his message to the world. The history of the world is writ large with the strife and the bloodshed and the waste and the hate of those disagreements.

But the one thing that you have all found that you CAN agree on is this; you finally have it right about the group that G wants you to beat the crap out of, except that we’re just the latest in a long line.. You can set aside Benny the Ratz’s statement that the only path to salvation is through him– I mean through Jesus of course. not Benny. Even though he does think that he is G’s representative on earth. Just like the Prophet.

So maybe, given the obvious, this really isn’t about your religion at all, or morality, or anything else that you wish to claim it is.
Let me repeat:

Prejudice and hate– honey, it has NEVER been about anything else, and never will be.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would realize that I’m not Mormon. Hello, I’m Catholic. Evangelicals historically dont like Catholics, but on the abortion issue, we have been able to put aside our differences, even become friends. The great walls that came down were 500 years old and I now count many Evangelicals among my friends. So, yes, it does happen.

And, as the secularists such as yourselves become more and more outrageous in your demands and anti-religious activities, you bring the religious community more and more together.

I know myself. I know I dont hate you or anyone. I disagree with you. So calling me a hater doesn’t have any traction with me.

You do not frighten, intimidate or deter me.

Ben, in Jesus Christ I love you. And I love you enough to not give into your self destructive demands.

Yes, self destructive because if you destroy El Coyote, there will be far greater repercussions to pay for the gay community.

This woman, whom you have already terrorized will be a martyr. And, nobody understands a martyr more that religious people.

This is a saliant point, you speak of religions all beliving that only heterosexual marriages are “holy” unions, that your particular take on your religious book should govern civil law and that is a unifying factor.

While the point is, it is not a universal agreement about that particular book. It is only a universal agreement by those who use the book to rationalize their prejudices. Ignoring those other religious groups who do not agree with your interpretation of “the book” and do not share your prejudices.

This conceit of yours was very explicitly illustrated by a recent event in Philadelphia where the Roman Catholic Church Bishops tried to assert ownership of the word “Catholic” by telling the Miriam Catholic Church it should not be listing itself in religious directories for Philadelphia as “Catholic”.

The Miriam Catholic Church along with the Old Catholic church as just so happens support SSM, and support the ordination of gay priests and in the case of the Miriam Catholic Church marriage for their priests regardless of orientation.

The point, I think, trying to be made is the only thing uniting diverse sectarian sects in opposition to SSM is their drive to impose their beliefs for governmental endorsement of institutionalized homophobia, the only uniting forc is the prejudice against homosexuality.

And this isn’t bringing the “religious community” more and more together, it is only bringing that part of the religious community together which perpetuates their own anti-gay prejudices. That prejudice is in fact splitting the religous communities and families apart. Denominations are splitting apart over the conflict of one religious group trying to assert it’s ownership of the “truth” into law. When what is not being voted on is theological beliefs.

“Ah, but you see,the problem is that youâ€™re not merely exercising your right to not patronize the business; instead, youâ€™re actively trying to destroy the business and a personâ€™s livelihood.”

Right, I support trying to put anti-gay businesses out of business by peaceful boycotts.

“If you choose not to eat there, that is your business. However, you are outside namecalling, physically blocking, and verbally assaulting patrons, and demanding that workers be fired for exercising their right to political beliefs, religious beliefs, and to donate to whom they choose.”

I’m not in So. California. I DO NOT support physically blocking people from entering a business. “Verbally assaulting?” –please. Some people were just expressing their opinion that gays should be ashamed of eating there. Do you understand the concept of free speech? And I’m not “demanding” that anyone be fired for their political activities–that is generally illegal. As if I had the power to do so.

“Ah, but you see, black people were not allowed to set foot inside segregated facilities, be served there, be employed there, or in any way associate with them.”

Of course they were allowed to set foot in segregated facilities–just not in the white section. And they may even have been employed as cooks or dishwashers.

“You as a gay person are perfectly welcome to set foot inside El Coyote, be served there, be employed there, and associate with them, as gay people obviously have been doing for years. No oneâ€™s stopping you; in fact, what has been made obvious is that gay people have been encouraged to eat there.”

Yes, I don’t disagree with you.

“The problem here is that you are equating being physically barred from a facility under penalty of arrest and imprisonment with someone making a donation based on their religious beliefs with which you donâ€™t agree.”

Not really. I’m just pointing out that if you actively suport taking away my rights, that may have economic consequences for you.

“Furthermore, it is amusing to watch gay and lesbian people try to smear the Mormons for child sexualization and marriage, as well as polygamous marriage, both of which the LDS Church has repudiated, when in fact the gay community itself argues that sexualizing two-year-olds constitutes an â€œeducational experienceâ€ that is within parentsâ€™ rights, that sex with children half their age is â€œcommonâ€ among gay people, and that marriage benefits should be extended to â€œhouseholds with more than one conjugal partnerâ€ â€” not to mention the fact that the ACLU, which is spearheading the California suits desperately trying to overturn the votersâ€™ right to limit marriage, believes that bans on plural marriage are unconstitutional and seeks to overturn them.”

I was not aware that there was a Gay Politburo” that spoke for the entire gay community.

Certain gay individuals take objectionable positions like people in any other group.

And I was not aware that the ACLU was a gay group. Is the Socialist Worker’s Party a gay group? Both have taken positions on gay issues, I suppose. So what?

Plural marriges are a distinct issue from the issue of whether one adult person should be able to marry another adult person of their choice, save a close relation.

I disagree that the voters have a “right” to restrict marriage to heterosexuals absent fiundamental Constitutional change. The Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions apply here. The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously agreed in the past that marriage is a “fundamental” right that cannot be infringed absent compelling reasons. Prisoners on death row currently enjoy the right to get married if they are straight.

To revise the California Constitution (which is what Prop 8 does), 2/3 of the state legislature must agree before putting it to the voters. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy.

Fr. J, I would think that you would have your hands full routing out the pedophiles in your pulpits to be so distracted with trying to keep free thinking, consenting adults from forming legally recognized loving and committed relationships.

Seriously bro, I think you have some seriously screwed up priorities.

Might I add that your church is SICK and DISGUSTING for trying to scapegoat the gay community for your pedophile problem. You deflected blame from yourselves onto a vulnerable and innocent minority.

Tell me how that is Christ-like.

ND30 has never met a homophobe that he didn’t love or a gay rights activist that he liked. His full time job seems to be trolling gay websites ranting and raving about how horrible gays and liberals and gay liberals are and how right and reasonable all right-wing conservatives and homophobes and right-wing conservative homophobes are.

ND40, the “gay community” does not in any way argue for the sexualization of 2 year olds or for pedophilia in any way. Just because you could find some links that show some gay people somewhere advocating those things doesn’t mean they speak for the gay community, and more than the members of Heaven’s Gate speak for the religious community. The world is a very big place and you could find crazies of every race, religion, sexuality, or political stripe and then insist their views are those of that community. I could link you an article about a Klan rally and then say that those are the views of the “white” community. But that would make me as intellectually bankrupt as you.

The *truth* is that boycotts are as American as bald eagles and apple pies. It’s how our country was formed, for crying out loud. Fr. J and ND40, do you get upset when people protest outside an abortion clinic? And yell “Shame, shame shame!” to the girls going inside? Or is that okay, because you agree with their stance? Would if you found out a religious leader at your church made a donation to planned parenthood or GLAAD? Would you say “oh well, it’s a private donation, it’s okay” or would you boycott that church and insist man doing the donating be fired?
Margie has made her living off of the goodwill of gay people that she secretly has, if not hate for, then a healthy amount of distaste. The fact that this has become known has many gay patrons feel as if they’ve been played for a fool. We gave her money before, which means, in essence, we gave money to Yes on 8. We’re not giving her money anymore.

This is probably superfluous since ND30’s been banned at this point but I did think of a couple things I wanted to add.

The first is a minor elaboration of my last comment. I don’t want to leave the impression that I am supportive of only legal protest. Non-violent civil disobedience is a valid, meaningful and important form of political protest. In the example to which I was responding civil disobedience didn’t seem appropriate or justifiable so it didn’t occur to me to address it.

The second thing I want to mention is that I don’t think we should be too hasty to dismiss legitimate criticisms because of the obnoxious way they are raised. It’s not a bad thing to be asked to consider the less obvious implications of the positions we take and to consider how they might appear to others who do not share our perspectives or beliefs. It’s important to think clearly about why we advocate the actions we do, what we hope to accomplish by them, and to honestly face the possible negative consequences and evaluate whether we are really ready to accept responsibility for them. Generally, I think folks here are quite thoughtful and reasonable (even in the face of really vile provocation), but I just wanted to put that out there.

That said, it’s a waste of time to feed trolls and I’m not going to pretend that ND30 is arguing in good faith. He’s got a big chip on his shoulder, he’s rude, and he isn’t much interested in respectful dialogue. I’m particularly dismayed that he’s adapted part of my previous response to him into a post on his site which attacks this web site. I should’ve known better…

Dude, know one is fooled by the “God Bless you” thing. I wonder, how do you think God feels when you say “God bless you”, but you really mean “f**k you”?

You feel that abortion is a social evil. Gay people boycotting El Coyote feel that being anti-gay marriage is a social evil. The difference is, unlike you, I’m not a hypocrite. I have no objection to you boycotting an abortion clinic and trying to put the people who work there out of a job, even though I disagree with you personally on that issue. You seem to feel that gay people have no right to boycott, which is one of America’s most treasured institutions.

And, I’m sorry, what did you say you would do if you discovered a religious leader in your church gave money to GLAAD or planned parenthood? Ah yes, you didn’t answer that question. Maybe because you knew it would undermine your argument?

I find it amusing that ND30 was trying to pursuade us about the “Gay Community” with the links he provided. If they had been from Lamda Legal, HRC, GLSEN, PFLAG, GLADD, The Center for Lesbian Rights, he might have a point.

But linking us to these things just because some gay people support these ideas is like linking any baptist to the Westboro Baptist Church. Or that Timothy McVeigh was a representative of Roman Catholicism and or agnostics everywhere (he claimed to be both at different times). Does Tonya Harding’s actions speak for figure skaters? Michael Vick for Athletes? R-Kelly for R&B artists?

But it’s all okay, Elton John said we should just accept Civil Partnerships, they’re the same thing! Because, you know, Civil Partnership is exactly the same in British Law and American law.

Fr J: “Ben, in Jesus Christ I love you. And I love you enough to not give into your self destructive demands.”

You can say this. It doesn’t really change anything. It doesn’t matter to me whether you are mormon or catholic. The principle is the same. That holds no ‘traction’ with me. As recently as three years ago, I heard a prominent evangelical refer to the RC as “that whore of Babylon”, and they deny that the only path of salvation is through [the Pope]. You now pursue gay people with the same moral certainty with which you used to burn witches– or each other. Until recently, Catholics and Protestants were still killing each other in Northern Ireland. Do you really think that the evangelicals, if they had the power they crave, would like you Catholics quite so much? I don’t think so. Your marriage, unlike mine, is truly one of convenience.

I’m not an anti-religion secularist, whatever that is. All of the people I know are perfectly happy to let you believe whatever you want. You are the ones that have been attacking us. I have never campaigned against religion or religious freedom. I think your religions are silly, hypocritical, self-serving, and focused on an unprovable salvation and afterlife scheme whose main purpose seems to be to keep [the Pope] in his castle on Lake Gandolfo eating with a golden fork while millions of catholic children starve or are sold into sexual slavery by their parents. (my gay brother kept a Filipino girl supported for years in order to prevent her parents form selling her to feed the family, but that is another story). Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, but I suspect he might have had a few opinions of the $75 million spent to attack my civil marriage instead of feeding the children. But you don’t care as much about feeding those children as you do about attacking us. how many of them died during the election cycle?

but please, don’t tell me you love me. You are the 8th Christian I’ve had an online debate with who, when I call you on your religious prejudice and your refusal to live and let live, ignore the obvious and go on about how much you AND G love me. I don’t believe that for a moment. You don’t know me or anything about me.

In an online debate, a pastor wrote this: “I also submit that just because I may believe that homosexual acts are wrong, it doesnâ€™t mean I donâ€™t care about homosexual people. Not all love says â€œyesâ€; all that says â€œnoâ€ does not necessarily mean hatred.â€

We have VERY VERY different ideas of love. You idea of love is spreading YOUR conception of the gospel to the poor sinners out thereâ€“ whether they are interested or not, without knowing whether they have already heard it and accepted itâ€“ or rejected it. In short, with knowing nothing about their spiritual state or how G sees themâ€“ or anything about them at all. In short, itâ€™s all about you, and not about the people you allegedly love. And thatâ€™s not love, itâ€™s narcissism.

A host of other good Christians are all happy to tell me how much they love me, and then follow it up with comments like â€˜cancer on societyâ€™ and the whole vicious panoply of anti-gay, homophobic, lying rants. They will tell me how much they love me right before they tell me how much they hate my child-molesting, disease spreading, country-destroying, religion-despising, marriage-compromising, military demoralizing ways — all of which is news to me and my husband. Sorry, if thatâ€™s love, I prefer hatred. Hatred I understand, and Iâ€™m not so stupid that I canâ€™t tell the difference.

You say that YOU are entitled to say NO based upon YOUR religious beliefs beliefs which I and a LOT of other people do not share– including your mormon and evangelical allies– whether on the nature of homosexuality or Gâ€™s message to the world. But funny, you donâ€™t usually makes campaigns against other religious beliefsâ€“ that would be so Middle Ages of you. Muslims, of course, are excepted. But you– by this I mean a generic you, Christians who think my sex life is their business– feel free to do that to gay people on a regular basis. I donâ€™t know if my marriage, which I assure you means far more to me than it does to you, exists– thanks to people who, like you, know nothing about homosexuality, my soul, or my lifeâ€“ or as far as I can tell, their bookâ€“ but still presume to tell me that I am not entitled to the same treatment in society that they are. In fact, the treatment I am entitled to is quite a bit different, and not in a good way, than the treatment they accord themselves. Itâ€™s all about the myth of heterosexual superiority in service to the reality of heterosexual privilege to enforce the myth of heterosexual hegemony.

You say you are entitled to say NO when you clearly know little about the subject (including the precious little that your book allegedly says on the alleged subject), and NOTHING about me, my experiences, my life, my beliefs, and yes, MY homosexualityâ€“ weâ€™re not really alike, despite your assumption that our â€™sinâ€™ defines us so.

And here is the crux of the issue. When you tell me you love me, it means vastly different things to each of us. You may tell me you love me, but the rhetoric and the religious belief is exactly the same as the generic you I have already addressed above. You do not believe my marriage can and should be valid, all in the name of loving me but hating my sin. As (I believe) General Westmoreland so bravely put it: “We must destroy that village in order to save it.” Lucky villagers! Saved!

As far as I can tell, in its practical effects, that â€œloveâ€™, that â€œrhetoricâ€, that â€œreligious beliefâ€ is completely indistinguishable from hatred. So I prefer the hatred, because at least it is honest and not self-serving. Only self-service here at The Morality Cafe. When the practical effects of your love and your careâ€“ and the political, cultural, religious and social agendas that your commitment to â€˜loveâ€™ requires you also to commit toâ€“ is indistinguishable from the effects of the â€˜noâ€™sâ€, the â€˜disapprovalâ€™, and the hate, then I might just lack the subtlety to be able to tell the difference.

So say it loud and sat it proud: I hate queers, and I will bend and twist any moral or civil principle that I can find in service to that idea. But i’ll call it love, because I really want to feel good about myself.

I’ve deleted the last three comments before Timothy’s. This thread is not about ND30 or anyone else. What’s more, since he has been banned and is not able to defend himself or answer to anyone, further comments speculating about him or talking about him are inappropriate.

Gays want to put out of business anyone that supported gay marriage. So if you voted yes, you must close down your business.

This is what I don’t get. So you put them out of business and then what? Are they allowed to work? Can marjorie get a job at another restaurante?

Can Scott Eckern ever work again? Can he get another job at a university? Does he have to say that he does not believe homosexuality to be a sin in order for him to work?

This boycotting is stupid because if prop 8 had failed, would you guys still be protesting el coyote? NOOOOO!!!! You’re only protesting because prop 8 passed.

Do gays think that all mormons, catholics, and others who don’t believe in gay marriage should be barrred from any leadership position in any company?

Because that would be 52 percent of californians which is ridiculous!!! You gays don’t give enough credit to the fact that gay marriage is a progressive idea and that it has not been around in our society for very long.

And I still think it’s funny that this is over 100 dollars. And that you will put a bunch of gays out of work and that they are losing tips, etc. And that it is a gay oriented restaurant that you are closing. And that most straight people don’t care. And that this protest won’t convince marjorie to change what she feels inside. And did i mention that huffington post reported that marjorie once flew home the mother of one of the patrons who died from AIDS.

Great woman to pick on. Gays are only hurting themselves by this. And most people who voted yes, who’s minds you are trying to change, think this is mean-spirited and consider it blacklisting. They don’t care if you feel slighted or justified. It isn’t changing their minds.

“Do gays think that all mormons, catholics, and others who donâ€™t believe in gay marriage should be barrred from any leadership position in any company?”

You don’t seem to understand the concept of a boycott. No, no one should be “barred” from anything based on how they vote. That would be against the First Amendment. No one is barring Marjorie or Eckern from ever working again. Your wild extrapolation is unfair and ridiculous.

“Gays want to put out of business anyone that supported gay marriage. So if you voted yes, you must close down your business.”

You’re literally the only one who’s said this.

What we are saying is, we aren’t going to give our money to Eckern and Marjorie. Both of those them worked closely with gay people, made their living off of them, and chose to take the money they earned *due to* gay people and use that money *against* gay people. We simply choose not to give any more of our money to people who will use it against us. What about that is so difficult to understand? It’s not about changing Scott, or Marjorie’s minds, as you seem to think it is. (They’ve both worked with gay people for years and years, and yet they both still think that, as great as gays are, they’re still inferior).
It’s simply about us not being saps.

Surely there must be a cause you believe in, Jesse. Think of whatever that is right now. Now imagine someone else wanted to give money to work *against* whatever that cause was that you believe in. Would you help them? Would you give them your money? Of course not. Ridiculous.

you don’t want marjorie out of business? Then why are the protestors yelling “shame, shame, shame,” to anyone who walks into the restaurant? Calling patrons supporters of hate!!!

Yup, that sounds like you don’t want her in business to me.

It’s fine if you don’t want to go to the restaurant, or go see California music circus, but that is not what happened. Gays called for the head of Scott eckern and got it. Marjorie has now left the restaurant.

You are saying that gays are just no going to give their money to people who voted yes. Maybe you feel that way that isn’t reality.

These attacks are personal because the action were done by people. You are not boycotting CMT or el coyote because the businesses did nothing!!! Two employees did!!! If these two people leave, you will stop boycotting, right!!! So, it is a personal attack!!!

And gays still don’t understand that it IS about changing peoples minds. That’s why gays lost the election. There is a huge disconnect between how gays and how opponents of gay marriage frame the disagreement.

Opponents don’t consider it a civil rights struggle. Gays do. Gays think that calling the other side haters is somehow going to shame them into changing their minds or speak to their conscience. But it won’t work because opponents don’t consider it a valid argument. That’s why you lost and by ryan’s post, he/she doesn’t understand this. Gays did not address the concerns of Yes on 8 voters. Until they do, there will be a split electorate.

Your attitude seems to bank on the courts overturning Prop 8. If the court doesn’t, all these protests and crap are screwing your cause. Right now, your actions are but hurt feelings, nothing more.

Whether Marjorie seeks another job (unlikely at her age) isn’t the issue. We object to the profits of our purchases being used against us. If Margie is part of the ownership of another restaurant, I’ll not go there either.

And perhaps you misunderstand. The protest against El Coyote is not because we lost, exactly. It’s because we were betrayed by Margie. I wouldn’t eat there again either way.

As for Scott Eckern working again, that’s a bit tougher. It may be difficult for him to find work in the theater world, just as it might be difficult for someone who supports racial discrimination to find an NFL team to hire him.

Perhaps Eckern can find work in the drama department at BYU or somewhere else that believes that gay people should accept “good enough” rights and not get all uppity and demand equal rights.

First of all, the opponents during the 60’s didn’t consider it a civil rights issue. Nor were women voting a civil rights issue. Nor was interracial marriage, etc, etc.
Opponents to civil rights rarely, if ever, see themselves as anything but “good people” who are just “doing what’s right.” History, however, has a different take on the matter in the end.

And it’s not just gays that see it as a civil rights issue. Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks see it as a Civil Rights issue, too. As does Governor Schwarzenegger, and a lot of other people like Molly Ringwald, Samuel L. Jackson, Brad Pitt, all these people aren’t gay. All these non-gay people seem to get it.

And we were 4 points shy of winning. 4 points. It was a landslide 8 years ago, this time, not so much. The trend over the past 30 years has been in favor of increasing support. If this vote had been next year, rather than this year, it’s entirely likely that we would’ve won, or at the very least lost by a much smaller margin.

Jesse, you’re just not listening at all.
YOU said (speaking for gay people):

“â€œGays want to put out of business anyone that supported gay marriage. So if you voted yes, you must close down your business.â€”

And I said that’s not true, we’ve never said that, which YOU distorted and reinterpreted to mean

“you donâ€™t want marjorie out of business? Then why are the protestors yelling â€œshame, shame, shame,â€ to anyone who walks into the restaurant? Calling patrons supporters of hate!!!”

Which is completely different. VOTING Yes and GIVING MONEY to Yes are two completely different things. I won’t give money to a business where the owner’s child (NOT an employee as you said) gave money against me. Only a fool would do so.

“These attacks are personal because the action were done by people. You are not boycotting CMT or el coyote because the businesses did nothing!!! Two employees did!!! If these two people leave, you will stop boycotting, right!!! So, it is a personal attack!!!”
First of all, your whole mind reading crap is annoying. Don’t tell me “why” I’m doing something, and I’ll do the same for you. The attacks by Marjorie and Scott were personal, as they both made their livings off of gay people, and both of them were in very high up positions. Not just “employees”. They very much so represented those businesses.

And you’re smug condescending BS about “this isn’t changing any minds” is way out of line. I know people like you would very much like it if we just sat on our hands and hoped really hard that people will change their minds if we say pretty pretty please. But those days are over. When businesses who rely on gays for financial support realize they can’t take our money and stab us in the back anymore, maybe they’ll reconsider how they vote on gay issues.

[…]businesses who rely on gays for financial support realize they canâ€™t take our money and stab us in the back anymore, maybe theyâ€™ll reconsider how they vote on gay issues.

I think that this should also apply to the “gay” vote. Politicians that rely on gays for their vote and support and then stab us in the back, I.E. Clinton and DOMA, Clinton and DADT, etc. had better start taking notice of our unrest.

I am not saying sit on your hands. I just think that the boycotts are a poor choice of strategy for the overall movement and more reactionary than from pragmatic thinking. The marchers and activism and the call to hold your leaders accountable are great, no disagreement there.

I sense a lack of appreciation for the arguments or reasons that people oppose gay marriage. I think if there had been more positive marchs before the election and more positive engagement (much like the marchs now), the vote could have been different. There seems to be too much blaming.

If I understand correctly, you guys feel this is purely a civil rights issue and that you can’t be denied it. The courts will show if that is a correct assumption or not. The truth is not everyone sees it the same as you. How you choose to deal with that may or may not affect the outcome. I don’t think the campaign ever dealt with concerns of prop 8 supporters, which, through time, may resolve themselves.

I disagree that protesting at churches and boycotting individual supporters helps your cause. It will interesting to see how everything plays out.

“I think if there had been more positive marchs before the election and more positive engagement (much like the marches now), the vote could have been different.”

This we agree on 100%. Polls showed Pro 8 losing badly as late as September. We were caught sleeping, and we didn’t know the Prop 8 people would change the argument and start telling lies about churches losing their tax exempt status or pastors going to jail for hate speech. Enough people who were ignorant on the issue were persuaded.

It was my understanding that the restaurant employees had taken up a donation out of their own pockets to make the financial donations and that the owners (i.e. Marjorie and her family) continued to state they had not participated in the donation. At least that has been what the Los Angeles Times has reported in their quotes of a restaurant spokesperson.

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.